There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman’s collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.

Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.

Click to expand...

that is what you are supporting/endorsing. years of settling for the "lesser" evil is how we got here.

Of course this is a blog, but hard to believe I'd see this kind of bull on Huff Post.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

Of course this is a blog, but hard to believe I'd see this kind of bull on Huff Post.

Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.

Click to expand...

She has the Kagans advising her. The ****ing Kagans.

I don't understand how this is hard for people to hear, she's been itching for a no fly zone (aka, initiation to a full war) in Syria for years now. She is a regime-change minded militarist.

Can we stop pretending that just because we have to vote for this woman that she doesn't have an abysmal record of supporting needless wars and interventions? Can we be honest? Even if that honesty starts November 9th, can we just tell the damn truth and try to prevent yet another escalation of the American Corporate Military machine war tactics?

I don't understand how this is hard for people to hear, she's been itching for a no fly zone (aka, initiation to a full war) in Syria for years now. She is a regime-change minded militarist.

Can we stop pretending that just because we have to vote for this woman that she doesn't have an abysmal record of supporting needless wars and interventions? Can we be honest? Even if that honesty starts November 9th, can we just tell the damn truth and try to prevent yet another escalation of the American Corporate Military machine war tactics?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's all that simple. Who started the ball rolling in the Middle East? Who inherited a mess? Now based on that, what is the responsible thing to do? We can pack our bags and become isolationists, and say sorry about that, or we can try to stay engaged and push for the best outcome. No matter what, people will die. If we walk away now, will our hands magically become clean?

I don't think it's all that simple. Who started the ball rolling in the Middle East? Who inherited a mess? Now based on that, what is the responsible thing to do? We can pack our bags and become isolationists, and say sorry about that, or we can try to stay engaged and push for the best outcome. No matter what, people will die. If we walk away now, will our hands magically become clean?

Click to expand...

so because someone else commited war crimes democrats have no choice but to continue with said war crimes? NO ONE SAID BECOME ISOLATIONIST, no one. we can deal with whomever wins. our hands are dirty as **** just messing things up there even more.

so because someone else commited war crimes democrats have no choice but to continue with said war crimes? NO ONE SAID BECOME ISOLATIONIST, no one. we can deal with whomever wins. our hands are dirty as **** just messing things up there even more.

--- Post Merged, Oct 21, 2016 ---

you mean Russias defence of their ally? how HORRIBLE of them, how DARE THEY support Assad who is their ally?
Hillary KNOWS WHO FUNDS ISIS but let's go kill Assad instead

Click to expand...

So you like Assad? And you define "war" as equivalent to "a crime" when the US is involved. No...continue making the war mongering claims, give Russia a pass, and continue the conversation with someone else who wants to waste time countering your posts at least on this topic.

...
you mean Russias defence of their ally? how HORRIBLE of them, how DARE THEY support Assad who is their ally?
Hillary KNOWS WHO FUNDS ISIS but let's go kill Assad instead

Click to expand...

Russia has the right to support any crackpot dictator they want. Personally, I am somewhat relieved they are making themselves targets for extremists, for perhaps there will be fewer taking their aim at us now. However, whatever Russia and the US want, part of the reason the US sits on the UN 'Security Council' is to prevent the kind of blood-letting currently going on in Syria. If we're going to be isolationist and stick our heads in the ground, we might as well quit the SC.

So you like Assad? And you define "war" as equivalent to "a crime" when the US is involved. No...continue making the war mongering claims, give Russia a pass, and continue the conversation with someone else who wants to waste time countering your posts at least on this topic.

Click to expand...

so you like war crimes?
if a republican was doing this you guys would be against it. there is no reason to take out Assad. pray/say/tell WHEN was "War" declared on Syria/Assad?

Russia has the right to support any crackpot dictator they want. Personally, I am somewhat relieved they are making themselves targets for extremists, for perhaps there will be fewer taking their aim at us now. However, whatever Russia and the US want, part of the reason the US sits on the UN 'Security Council' is to prevent the kind of blood-letting currently going on in Syria. If we're going to be isolationist and stick our heads in the ground, we might as well quit the SC.

Click to expand...

again, who the hell said ANYTHING about being isolationist? the blood letting got worse in Libya IMHO once we took out Kaddafy for "humanitarian" reasons. 1000's still die and millions have fled since O-stupid "liberated" them.

I don't think it's all that simple. Who started the ball rolling in the Middle East? Who inherited a mess? Now based on that, what is the responsible thing to do? We can pack our bags and become isolationists, and say sorry about that, or we can try to stay engaged and push for the best outcome. No matter what, people will die. If we walk away now, will our hands magically become clean?

Click to expand...

You're not listening.

The neocons, the Kagans being front and center, have been pushing to intervene in every single country we've invaded or "defended" in the last decade. These are the people that wrote the PNAC along with Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. Almost two decades later we are marching into conflict with every country the PNAC paper wanted us to, almost in the same order. That's not a coincidence, that's the thought and policy shaping cabal of neocon influence peddlers still having power in DC.

Victoria Nulan is the wife of one of the Kagans and is the head of European affairs, basically the director of our policy in Ukraine. You know her because she was the one that had audio leaked of her choosing the Ukrainian president/PM (can't remember what they have)...and lo and behold he's the new leader.

Robert Kagan (Nulan's husband) is one of the most influential think tank policy makers (you know the drill, think tank with certain influential figures puts out a policy paper, the exact policy goes into effect in Washington) AND was a special advisor in Clintons innermost circle when she was Secretary of State.

Personel is policy, Clinton has surrounded herself with the definitive who's who of neocon policy makers (the ones that haven't been banished after the W years) and aligns directly with their views. The entire no-fly zone push originated in the Kagan's think tank.

Russia has the right to support any crackpot dictator they want. Personally, I am somewhat relieved they are making themselves targets for extremists, for perhaps there will be fewer taking their aim at us now. However, whatever Russia and the US want, part of the reason the US sits on the UN 'Security Council' is to prevent the kind of blood-letting currently going on in Syria. If we're going to be isolationist and stick our heads in the ground, we might as well quit the SC.

Click to expand...

I thought it was to veto any decisions that might make the US accountable on the world stage. You know Reagan was actually declared a war criminal by International Court of Justice (a world body) but the decision had to go through the SC but it was veto'd by the US right?

The neocons, the Kagans being front and center, have been pushing to intervene in every single country we've invaded or "defended" in the last decade. These are the people that wrote the PNAC along with Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc. Almost two decades later we are marching into conflict with every country the PNAC paper wanted us to, almost in the same order. That's not a coincidence, that's the thought and policy shaping cabal of neocon influence peddlers still having power in DC.

Victoria Nulan is the wife of one of the Kagans and is the head of European affairs, basically the director of our policy in Ukraine. You know her because she was the one that had audio leaked of her choosing the Ukrainian president/PM (can't remember what they have)...and lo and behold he's the new leader.

Robert Kagan (Nulan's husband) is one of the most influential think tank policy makers (you know the drill, think tank with certain influential figures puts out a policy paper, the exact policy goes into effect in Washington) AND was a special advisor in Clintons innermost circle when she was Secretary of State.

Personel is policy, Clinton has surrounded herself with the definitive who's who of neocon policy makers (the ones that haven't been banished after the W years) and aligns directly with their views. The entire no-fly zone push originated in the Kagan's think tank.

The Kagans (Nuland is Robert Kagans wife) even rebranded PNAC as the Center for a new American Security, who's white paper basically outlines the strategy the US is currently using. I have it on my iPad currently and it's essentially a rehashed "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the hallmark PNAC document that outlined the Bush administrations foreign policy several years before he actually got elected (quick summary http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm). That included attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Libya, and a few others.

There is no "war party" in the United States. Why? Because all things considered, war is bad for business. It introduces uncertainty, which rational businesspeople don't like. It disrupts markets. It raises insurance premiums. It makes the cost of doing every sort of business imaginable much, much higher.

Goldman Sachs can make far more money selling bonds for water desalinization plants and container ports than ever could hope to make by taking a position in Lockheed Martin or Raytheon. If you take a look at the Fortune 500 US largest US companies, which ones - precisely - would benefit from armed conflict? Wal-Mart? Apple? Exxon-Mobil? Berkshire-Hathaway? AT&T? Costco? Microsoft? Home Depot?

Name any country in crisis, anywhere in the world, and American business has far more to gain by selling them smartphones and prescription medicines; by offering them credit cards and cheap airline seats, than it could possibly ever make selling smart bombs and tank parts to the Pentagon.

There is no "war party" in the United States. Why? Because all things considered, war is bad for business. It introduces uncertainty, which rational businesspeople don't like. It disrupts markets. It raises insurance premiums. It makes the cost of doing every sort of business imaginable much, much higher.

Goldman Sachs can make far more money selling bonds for water desalinization plants and container ports than ever could hope to make by taking a position in Lockheed Martin or Raytheon. If you take a look at the Fortune 500 US largest US companies, which ones - precisely - would benefit from armed conflict? Wal-Mart? Apple? Exxon-Mobil? Berkshire-Hathaway? AT&T? Costco? Microsoft? Home Depot?

Name any country in crisis, anywhere in the world, and American business has far more to gain by selling them smartphones and prescription medicines; by offering them credit cards and cheap airline seats, than it could possibly ever make selling smart bombs and tank parts to the Pentagon.

Click to expand...

Ah, the old trade prevents war mindset.

Do you understand the role defense contractors and banks have in rebuilding after we bomb? It's a twofer, and it is to the tune of hundreds of billions a year worldwide. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, UBS, they all administer the contracts that countries use to raise funds for rebuilding infrastructure AND military after the fact.

$6 Trillion lost by the Pentagon since 2000, mostly in contracting with third party manufacturers and service providers....you go ahead and think that there is no massive financial windfall for US interests in war, we'll be by the pool living in the real world if you'd like to join us.

I thought it was to veto any decisions that might make the US accountable on the world stage. You know Reagan was actually declared a war criminal by International Court of Justice (a world body) but the decision had to go through the SC but it was veto'd by the US right?

Click to expand...

Actually my understanding is that the US was found to have acted illegally in Central America during Reagan's time. The US withdrew from the Court so it didn't have to pay the fine. I don't think Reagan was actually named as a war criminal though - correct me if I am wrong.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.